User talk:Lawrencewarwick

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arthur Alan Wolk. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it (by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. Chzz ► 06:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips Chzz I believe all the concerns have been addressed and have resubmitted the article as suggested LEW (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance

Arthur Alan Wolk, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia! — Waterfox 22:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11.03.2010 I am reverting or undoing the contribution by "Boo the puppy" from the Arthur Alan Wolk article because it has violated several Wikipedia policies about living persons: poorly sourced – self published sources (references from blogs), misuse of primary sources and disparaging (biased) content. The content added by “Boo the puppy” is contentious and reports a conflict Wolk is having with bloggers. Not appropriate for information about living persons. LEW (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi Lawrence, there is some discussion at the BLP noticeboard here that you may want to read/comment on regarding the Wolk BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pic

Regarding this pic http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:ArthurWolksmile-2.jpg and the claim that Mr Wolk said you could use it . that is a weak claim of copyright. Issue one is to be sure of who owns the copyright, often this is the photographer but sometimes I have seen the political people do have pics taken and keep the copyright, so that is one and then the best is if the person that owns the picture uploads it them selves, but they can also contact WP:OTRS via email and state who they are and that they own the pic and that they release it under such and such a commons licence. Hope that helps, I see the pic in question is on Mr Wolks website with a copyright claim there. http://arthuralanwolk.com if you have a question, feel free to ask and if I can help I will or I will point you in the direction of someone that can. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless conflict of interest

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Arthur Alan Wolk, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call knowing Arthur Wolk and asking for his permission to write an article a shameless conflict of interest but i will refrain from future edits now that experienced Wikipedia editors have taken an interest in this. LEW (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With your most recent edit on that AfD, I would suggest that you refrain from posting further to the AfD itself, as required by WP:COI. If you would like to continue contributing to Wikipedia, there is no shortage of other articles to work on. best wishes, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind and polite tip I will follow your advice. 108.25.143.122 (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You allege that you merely know Mr. Wolk. You are aware, of course, that you announced that you have been hired by his firm to "redesign their corporate website and provide Internet marketing services," right? Are you being honest, here? Hipocrite (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arthur Alan Wolk for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Arthur Alan Wolk, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're not invited to participate in that AfD, per WP:COI -- so please ignore this message from Smartse. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with this last message and apply good faith and unless you are told by an administrator then please feel free to discuss and comment there. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is way out of line -- the COI is acknowledged and obvious and the instructions given at WP:COI are quite clear on this matter. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree, I suggest if you want to restrict this user from contributing that you get an uninvolved administrator to tell him . Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree with the requirements of WP:COI? Then take it up there and stop misleading people here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree that you are correct to attempt to restrict this contributor from posting at the AFD of an article he created. Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is to look at Hipocrite's post in the preceding section to understand why this is the right advice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still do not see a reason for you to restrict the user from posting in the AFD discussion of an article he created, as I said if you want to restrict him please get Administration to enact the restriction. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a better than average chance that the user is involved in some sort of agenda-driven editing which conflicts with Wikipedia's purpose of being a high-quality, online encyclopedia. The editor has focused exclusively on this article, and has not upheld WP:NPOV very well. This could be because they are a newbie, but I get the feeling that there is more to it than that. Most newbies will become active in a variety of articles and topics, given time. I hope Lawrencewarwick will do that. Consider this a gentle suggestion to diversify interests, and to let more experienced editors deal with this controversial article which involves sensitive WP:BLP and WP:COI concerns. You might have come here for the wrong reasons, as I did, but after being informed how things work, I hope you will see that there is a right way and a wrong way for a business to approach Wikipedia. As long as you heed this advice, you are welcome to edit. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think some editors are overreacting to the way Warwick misled them about his conflict of interest, a problem he has since corrected. (It would likely help soothe some of those feathers if Warwick apologized instead of pretending he didn't do it.) Some of that is the fault of the editor who approved the original new article without adequately checking to see if it met Wikipedia standards; that's not Warwick's fault as a first-time editor, who should have been politely guided away from the peacock language before the article was approved. There are hundreds of inappropriate articles on Wikipedia that look like they were written by a marketer, so it's not surprising that a marketer new to Wikipedia made a mistake.

Nomoskedasticity, you misinterpret WP:COI: nothing in that guideline prohibits Warwick from participating in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk discussion, so long as he discloses his financial relationship with Wolk; his arguments will be given the appropriate weight, so there is no harm in his participation, and it will be useful to know if Wolk is interested in having an article on a website that anyone can edit and may not have the emphasis he prefers. Indeed, nothing in WP:COI prohibits Warwick from editing the Arthur Alan Wolk page, so long as he adheres to Wikipedia policies about editing neutrally and the WP:NLT policy. That said, given Jehochman's warning and Wikipedians' resentment of conflicts of interest (even when permitted by the written guideline), it may be more productive to participate through the Talk:Arthur Alan Wolk page if his edits have any chance of being controversial. THF (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest (and paid editing)

First, thank you for identifying your potential conflict of interest with respect to the article Arthur Alan Wolk. Disclosure can, in addition to flak, result in collaboration by other editors with respect to the notability of the subject and the content of the article. It is not a violation of policy to edit articles for friends, or even for public relations purposes, but care should be taken and scrutiny by other editors can be expected. With respect to paid editing: we have no policy in effect forbidding paid editing, or compensated public relations work on behalf of a client. Fred Talk 20:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted my concerns at COIN. I have no opinion about Arthur Alan Wolk, but I am troubled by your editing practices. Racepacket (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:F9F-2-Wolk.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:F9F-2-Wolk.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:ArthurWolksmile-2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:ArthurWolksmile-2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 04:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]